Halpern received a termination recommendation.
A separate state standards board opened certification proceedings.
Because I headed the state police, I recused myself entirely.
Three members of the board asked whether I wanted to submit a victim-impact statement.
I declined.
Not because there was no impact.
Because I did not want my title adding artificial weight to a disciplinary question that should stand on evidence.
Halpern appealed.
That was his right.
At the hearing, his attorney framed the incident as a misunderstanding intensified by my behavior.
He argued that ceremonial uniforms were uncommon in shopping centers.
True.
He argued that law enforcement impersonation exists.
True.
He argued that officers are permitted to investigate suspicious credentials.
Also true.
Then the department attorney asked the obvious question.
“Is an officer permitted to refuse verification?”
Halpern’s lawyer paused.
“No.”
“Was verification available?”
“Yes.”
“Did Officer Halpern attempt it?”
“No.”
That was the case in three answers.
Halpern testified.
I watched from a separate room because I had been called as a witness later.
He looked different.
Not physically.
The certainty was gone.
“When you saw Commissioner Reed,” the hearing officer asked, “what made you suspect impersonation?”
“The uniform looked unusual in that environment.”
“Anything else?”
“His age.”
“Anything else?”
“No.”
“When he presented credentials, what made you believe they were fraudulent?”
Halpern hesitated.
“The situation.”
“What about the credential itself?”
“Nothing specific.”
“Did you recognize the state seal?”
“Yes.”
“Did the photograph match?”
“Yes.”
“Did the title correspond with the insignia?”
“I believe so.”
“Was a verification number available?”
“Yes.”
“Why did you not call it?”
Halpern looked toward his attorney.
Then answered:
“Because at that point I believed the subject was trying to control the encounter.”
Subject.
Not commissioner.
Not Mr. Reed.
Subject.
The hearing officer leaned forward.
“How would verification have caused you to lose control?”
Halpern did not answer.
The silence lasted long enough to become uncomfortable.
Finally:
“It felt like he was ordering me around.”
The hearing officer sat back.
There it was.
Not the entire explanation.
But enough of one.
Later I testified.
Halpern would not look at me.
The department attorney asked me to describe the moment I presented my credential.
I did.
Then his attorney stood.
“Commissioner Reed, you are accustomed to giving orders.”
“Yes.”
“You supervise a very large organization.”
“Yes.”
“You are therefore comfortable asserting authority.”
“When required.”
“Would you agree your communication style can be commanding?”
“Sometimes.”
“Is it possible Officer Halpern interpreted your words as an attempt to dominate the interaction?”
“Yes.”
The attorney looked surprised.
“So you admit your tone contributed?”
“No.”
“You just said—”
“I said it is possible he interpreted it that way.”
I looked toward Halpern.
“His interpretation does not change the verification procedure.”